PREPAREDNESS OF CANADIAN PHYSICIAN OFFICES FOR PAEDIATRIC EMERGENCIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND Studies in the US have demonstrated that many primary care staff and offices are inadequately prepared for paediatric emergencies. Although the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recently reaffirmed their “Guidelines for Paediatric Emergency Equipment and Supplies for a Physician’s Office”, no evaluation has been made regarding the impact of publishing these recommendations, or on the state of preparedness for paediatric emergencies in family physician offices. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate awareness of and adherence of family physicians in Ontario to the CPS guidelines on preparedness for paediatric emergencies. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a province-wide, cross-sectional survey of 749 randomly selected family physicians. Participants were asked to complete a 14-question survey regarding clinic characteristics, incidence of paediatric emergencies, and preparedness of the clinic in the case of a paediatric emergency. Ethics approval was obtained from the regional Ethics Review Board. RESULTS 94 physicians responded to our survey (response rate of 13.1%). 68.1% of respondents reported seeing more than 10 children per week, and 59.6% and had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year. The proportion of physicians reporting paediatric emergencies within the last year increased with the number of children seen - 37.9% of physicians who saw fewer than 10 children per week reported an emergency, compared to 100.0% of those who saw more than 40 children per week. Only 4.3% respondents reported that they were unaware of the CPS guidelines on paediatric emergency preparedness. Although 85.1% of respondents were aware of the guidelines, only 10.6% of respondents had read them. Of the physicians who were aware of but had not read the guidelines, 2.5% engaged in mock code sessions, 27.8% were up-to-date on Paediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS), 1.3% had written protocols outlining safe transport of children to hospitals, and 41.8% stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. In comparison, of the physicians who had read the guidelines, 20.0% engaged in mock code sessions, 50.0% were up-to-date on PALS, 10.0% had written protocols, and 70.0% stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. CONCLUSION A large proportion of respondents had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year, but were overall underprepared. There was a discrepancy between physicians who were aware of the CPS guidelines on emergency preparedness (85.1%), and those who have actually read them (10.6%), though offices with the latter were more adherent to the guidelines’ recommendations. It will be important for CPS to consider how to further advocate for paediatric emergency preparedness in clinics that see children regularly.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».